Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

(PC) Taylor v. Gregory, 1:16-cv-00698-LJO-SAB (PC). (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20171228a72 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 27, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON (ECF No. 36) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Shauntae Taylor is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On September 18, 2017 a settlement conference was held in this matter before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, at which this case settled. (ECF No. 32.) On September 20, 2017, a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice was fi
More

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON

(ECF No. 36)

Plaintiff Shauntae Taylor is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On September 18, 2017 a settlement conference was held in this matter before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, at which this case settled. (ECF No. 32.) On September 20, 2017, a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice was filed, (ECF No. 34), and on September 21, 2017, this case was closed, (ECF No. 35).

On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions, arguing that he has not been compensated according to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement reached between the parties. On November 16, 2017, the Court ordered Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 37.)

On November 29, 2017, defense counsel filed a declaration in response to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. Defense counsel declared that Plaintiff's motion was premature, as the time allotted to comply with the requirement to deliver certain property elements of the settlement agreement had not passed at the time that Plaintiff filed his motion. Nevertheless, defense counsel further declared that as of November 17, 2017, Plaintiff had received the agreed-upon property as part of the terms of the settlement agreement in this case. (ECF No. 38.)

The time for Plaintiff to reply to the response has passed, and no reply has been filed. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

In reviewing the submissions by the parties, the Court agrees that Plaintiff's motion was prematurely filed. More importantly, it appears that Plaintiff has received the complained-about property, and thus the basis for his request for sanctions is now moot. Plaintiff does not dispute that he received the agreed-upon property he sought.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for sanction is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer